Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[GhostCrab]

She is FREE.

But here's the point: HER civil rights are the same as OUR civil rights. Free or not.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Is Bradley's deposition available? I found an article from April 13th that says:

"I found two results," Bradley told lawyers in his deposition. "One was for 'chloroform,' spelled 'c-h-l-o-r-o-f-o-r-m,' and that was dated March 17, 2008, at 14:43 p.m., 41 seconds. And there was one visit. And the second entry is for 'how to make chloroform,' and the same spelling on the 21st of March, 2008, at 3:16 p.m. and 30 seconds. One visit."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/april/232153/

This is exactly the way I recall it happening...I posted the jury foreman's comments about "1" Chloroform search earlier (pg 5, i think) for clarification because I was lost...am still lost and about to pull my hair out.

Here's my Q: If the jury knew there was 1 and NOT 84, then the DT knew...right? So, how would that still be problematic? Why would LDB be "in trouble"? TIA

 

[Psmith]

Actually, it was a huge issue. To say she had gone on it 84 times was huge and to find out it was not true was also huge. IMO.

It is to us and others who read the docs and watched every hearing/trial hour, anyway. What I mean is that the jurors didn't seem to care one whit about the computer forensic evidence or even the Gentiva records. Hypothetically, the jurors could have been shown a KC email saying that she was going to make a duct tape sculpture at the Suburban site on June 16, and they still would not have cared. jmo

Agree, though: I am scandalized.

 

[cluciano63]

The State is held to a very high standard, while the defense only has to deflect what the state says or offer alternative theories, etc...whether we like that system or not.

They did try to capitalize on the the number 84-it doesn't matter what the jury did or did not believe or what the outcome was. It is scary to me because if true (that they knew) they were willing to go ahead and shout it out anyway, just in case they needed that extra punch to get the conviction and hopefully the death penalty. Doesn't that scare everyone a little bit, no matter what you feel about Casey?

 

[annalia]

This would be a question for another thread. Thanks.

Sorry about that JBean.

I was just responding to someones post stating the allegations had not been factually disproven.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I think the issue is more about the principle and the potential cost effect.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with:

-The costs the state is suing for
-The importance of the evidence
-The fact that the DT came out with the truth on the searches (I can't believe I just wrote that the DT came out with the truth about anything).
-The verdict
-The lies the DT threw out there
-The fact that she killed her daughter

It really has nothing to do with ANYTHING at all except that the Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to have the evidence disclosed, which they are claiming was not and the principle and oath that everyone takes not to lie and the state is held to a higher standard. We, the people, should be able to go into a court of law and listen to what the state has to say and should be able to believe every word of it because it should be 100% truthful at all times. If they presented evidence that they knew to be false, they violated her rights.

I really hope this is looked into. The news everywhere is picking it up and I can't imagine that it will not be investigated at this point. If the state did wrong they should be held accountable, just like I believe that JB should be held accountable for their misconduct (but it doesn't matter to LDB's actions because 2 wrongs don't make a right) and if there was no misconduct and Bradley is lying and back peddling, he should be held accountable for those lies and make a public apology and be punished for these charges to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Is Bradley's deposition available? I found an article from April 13th that says:

"I found two results," Bradley told lawyers in his deposition. "One was for 'chloroform,' spelled 'c-h-l-o-r-o-f-o-r-m,' and that was dated March 17, 2008, at 14:43 p.m., 41 seconds. And there was one visit. And the second entry is for 'how to make chloroform,' and the same spelling on the 21st of March, 2008, at 3:16 p.m. and 30 seconds. One visit."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/april/232153/

We were told that she visited Sci-Spot only once. Which of the above two searches led her to that website? So then for the other search, did she not visit any website after seeing the stack of search results on the monitor?

 

[Just Jayla]

This is exactly the way I recall it happening...I posted the jury foreman's comments about "1" Chloroform search earlier (pg 5, i think) for clarification because I was lost...am still lost and about to pull my hair out.

Here's my Q: If the jury knew there was 1 and NOT 84, then the DT knew...right? So, how would that still be problematic? Why would LDB be "in trouble"? TIA

Don't believe she would be. And doesn't matter in the grand scheme. A problem area may have arisen if the state chose to try CA for perjury...it would be very bad for them to debate with her about the whole issue when they weren't armed with correct facts to begin with. As we know, the state is not charging her, so it seems that at least in some sense, the state has integrity and is not out to get people using faulty evidence.

ETA-And thank goodness for everything being out in the Florida Sunshine. If they were to try CA and CA's team asked for the computer search info via discovery, all of the behind the scenes stuff would be out there. Thus, the law can work to protect people from their government whether the state acts maliciously or in good faith. I might think this jury stinks, but I will always believe in rule of law and this one works.

 

[EPfan]

:maddening:

I am just appalled by the number of people who want to hold the State and Linda Drane-Burdick "responsible" for the mistake of this computer "witness" ...

I also want to know WHY these same people who want to hold the State and LDB responsible for an error made by a computer witness, are NOT screaming to hold Jose Baez responsible for his LIES in his Opening Statement ?

I know Opening Statement is NOT evidence -- but Jose put it out there -- the Jury heard -- and they "bought" it ! :banghead:

You just can't have it both ways ...

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

For me I think it is a very bad move on the procecution.
It shows that they just wanted to convict no matter what they had to do.
They knew on June 25th that the search was only 1 time and that the search was for 19th Century Chloroform use.
LDB used the 84 time search in closing arguements. Do you think this is right?
The procecution got up and talked about lying the whole trial. Now do you think is it OK for them to do it?
How can there be justice for you and me, when people try to procecute with false evidence. I know that they didn't know in the beginning but then when they found out they should have done the right thing because of justice.

I may not like the outcome of this whole trail but this information is absolutly very important and it shouldn't be over looked no matter who was on trail.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Personally I did not believe a word of River Cruz's testimony no matter how many times she claimed she had sex with GA - she was paid for her story - that's enough to destroy her credibility with jurors who have an ounce of common sense. This issue (computer search) will be debated by all the TH's until the truth - like Caylee Marie Anthony - gets lost in the sauce.

 

[elementary]

2 things. First, if the prosecution was told this info is incorrect and LDB still emphasized it in rebuttal and closing, then that's a big deal because at that point you are intentionally misleading the jury to believe something that is factually not true.

Second, JB can say martians are responsible for Caylee's death and he is not responsible for proving any of it, only to show evidence that shows doubt, preferable to support his own theory.

Will anything come out of this? Probably not, she was aquitted. But if she wasn't, this could of been a much bigger story, one that perhaps could of gotten her off on appeal.

As I stated above, I do recall that the state informed DT of the error and Baez whined about it to the judge. I also noticed there was no mention of chloroform in the closing statement.

 

[Psmith]

*respectfully snipped*

When the state takes someone to trial on something, they are required to turn over to the defense any information that could help the defendant. They are also not allowed to present anything at trial that they do not believe is 100% true. The state's witness is now coming forward and saying that before trial was over, he realized that there was a glitch in his program that made the results seem as though CFCA had searched and visited the chloroform website 84 times, when in truth, she had only gone there once. He is claiming that he went to the state and told them about the error and he was told that they already knew this long ago, but continued to say at trial that she had been there 84 times and did not disclose to the defense that the original report was in error. This was a violation of CFCA's Constitutional rights.

*snipped*

As long as I am not attacked, I will try to answer any questions I can about this, because it is important and I do not believe that this will be the last that we hear about this.

I totally understand and appreciate what you are saying. I guess I am questioning Mr. Bradley's credibility at this point. Bring on some docs and (alleged) communications with LE or State!

 

[annalia]

But did they not put their own potential conviction at grave risk? I think so.

Frankly, I think it's a moot point since the jury gave it no weight in their deliberations and she was acquitted.

I'm not ready to hang LDB just yet. I will admit that I am fuzzy in my recollections of it being brought out in trial that it was a mistake but I do recall it being said that it was an error.

 

[PaulaF513]

I know that at some point during the trial it came out that 84 searches was a mistake. We discussed it here and wondered how the prosecution would rectify the error. I believe it was the defense that pointed out the mistake and the prosecution never addressed it or corrected themselves. I was surprised to hear LDB restate that 84 searches were made during her closing.

IMO, which really means nothing, the state deserves a huge slap on the wrist but, since Casey was not convicted, she really can't claim to have suffered any damages and is not entitled to compensation. The state is after her to pay for the expenses related to the lying for which she was convicted, nothing else.

Yes I remember this too. Baez say something to the effect that the highest number of clicks were to MySpace, not searches for chloroform.

Honestly, my own opinion is that KC would have never been capable of making chloroform...she's lazy for starters. And with the abundance of "knockout" drugs on the market, I don't see where chloroform would have been necessary. I thought it a mistake for the SA to make such a big thing of it.

I believe KC killed Caylee and that it wasn't an accidental drowning. However, the commotion surrounding the release of this story (as though it's new news) can have the effect of dampening the fury of the public which has been outraged by the NG verdict. I daresay you will soon have people opining that the verdict was right and the the state was misleading in all of the circumstantial evidence. What a shame.

 

[JWG]

LDB knew when she presented the closing arguements.

...and therefore did not claim there were 84 visits to the site...

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Is Bradley's deposition available? I found an article from April 13th that says:

"I found two results," Bradley told lawyers in his deposition. "One was for 'chloroform,' spelled 'c-h-l-o-r-o-f-o-r-m,' and that was dated March 17, 2008, at 14:43 p.m., 41 seconds. And there was one visit. And the second entry is for 'how to make chloroform,' and the same spelling on the 21st of March, 2008, at 3:16 p.m. and 30 seconds. One visit."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/april/232153/

from my understanding, we all (myself included) keep saying searches. But the actual issue of 1 vs 84 was how many visits there were to the Sci-spot site.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

2 things. First, if the prosecution was told this info is incorrect and LDB still emphasized it in rebuttal and closing, then that's a big deal because at that point you are intentionally misleading the jury to believe something that is factually not true.

Second, JB can say martians are responsible for Caylee's death and he is not responsible for proving any of it, only to show evidence that shows doubt, preferable to support his own theory.

Will anything come out of this? Probably not, she was aquitted. But if she wasn't, this could of been a much bigger story, one that perhaps could of gotten her off on appeal.

I completely understand what has happened here ... but let me say this:

The SA completely understood their expert witnesses and what their expert testimony would be ... BUT ...

The DT did NOT understand their OWN expert witnesses ... and tried to UNDERMINE EVERY SINGLE WITNESS THE SA put on the stand ... including Jose mentioning the "FINANCIAL FACTOR" of each of the SA's expert witnesses !

This trial was TOO BIG for the SA to take any sort of "RISK" ...

MOO MOO MOO

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

 

[MsMacGyver]

To me the problem with the searches was the post on facebook by the boyfriend saying win her over with chloroform. The 1 search came after the facebook posting which the DT claims is why FICA went to search chloroform. It might have put a dent in the prosecutions premediated charge but IMO the jury still had enough for 2nd degree which I think included the child abuse charge which still would have lead them back to 1st degree. It still doesn't change the evidence that there was a very large amount of chloroform found in the trunk of the car.

 

[Psmith]

But it's not moot because if the defense decides to go after this, the state of Florida could end up paying for the whole trial instead of KC having to pay.

I'm not clear on this--have never heard of a not guilty defendant being liable for the cost of a trial. State picks up the tab regardless, right?

 

[Stargazer7]

I really don't remember LDB even mentioning the chloroform in her closing arguments, and she made them right after JB complained in front of everyone about the discrepancy about chloroform in the two computer forensics reports.

I remember Jeff Ashton bringing up chloroform in in his closing arguments, and that was based on Vass's findings in the trunk. He also told the jury they were free to dismiss any of the expert's findings.

I think the defense team are major hypocrites and will find any way to wiggle out of future lawsuits for Casey.