Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[dunlurken]

The question was, "Did LDB mention 84 searches in her closing arguments". (See above)

No, she did not. Nor did she bring up chloroform at all. Please go back and watch her closing argument before putting out misinformation.

I don't need to. All I know is that she drove it home during her examination of Cindy A. 84, 84, 84. I mean what the heck? Then nothing to PROVE 84 searches of anything, much less chlorform. The entire case was a fiasco. Thus the NG.

 

[cityslick]

Directly taken from RH's article

"But my question is how do we know the State Attorney’s Office didn’t know that the computer search was flawed. If they did, they not only had a duty to disclose it to the defense, but a duty to disclose it to the court, and more than likely a duty to correct it in front of the jury."

The important point above is that we DON'T know the SA's knew the computer search was flawed. And we don't. And tossing out accusations until we know is just as bad as the DT opening statement accusing GA and LA of molesting FCA without any proof of the molestation.

And the SA did disclose it to the defense once they knew the error. The DT could have asked for a instruction to the jury and they didn't. And HHJP didn't decide to make one. End of story.

What if it's an opinion that they (the poster) think the state knew the search was flawed? Would it be valid to post it then?

It's actually a serious question.

 

[GhostCrab]

Directly taken from RH's article

"But my question is how do we know the State Attorney’s Office didn’t know that the computer search was flawed. If they did, they not only had a duty to disclose it to the defense, but a duty to disclose it to the court, and more than likely a duty to correct it in front of the jury."

The important point above is that we DON'T know the SA's knew the computer search was flawed. And we don't. And tossing out accusations until we know is just as bad as the DT opening statement accusing GA and LA of molesting FCA without any proof of the molestation.

And the SA did disclose it to the defense once they knew the error. The DT could have asked for a instruction to the jury and they didn't. And HHJP didn't decide to make one. End of story.

You should back up what you say. At least provide a link to the point in the trial that LDB admitted her error to the DT in open court.

Edited to add: you are right, we do not know for a fact that the state knew that their evidence was faulty. But based on the word of Mr. Bradley, who asserts that they DID know, I believe that there should be an investigation.

 

[askfornina]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please stop. IMO this mistake is being capitalized on in an attempt to soften Casey's public image IMO. That is all!!!

sorry, i am truly not meaning to put words in your mouth and i didn't even realize my last comment did. i was just mainly asking for you to clarify and now you did and i'm satisfied.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Dd LDB mention 84 searches in her closing arguments?

No ...

MY OPINION : LDB and the SA could have had a VIDEO of Casey Anthony SEARCH "HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM" and a VIDEO of Casey using that chloroform on Caylee ... and this Jury still would have found Casey NOT GUILTY !

THE JURY DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE ... PERIOD ... END OF STORY !

READ THE JUROR'S STATEMENTS !

Wow, watching HLN, imo, the State is in trouble. I predict LDB's resignation shortly.

Could you please provide a "link" as to HOW the State is in trouble. Thank You.

MY OPINION: I hope LBD does NOT RESIGN ! I thought Jeff, Linda and Frank did the best they could ... considering the continuous "unethical", "unprofessional" and "uneducated" defense attorney they had to deal with -- Jose Baez !


MOO MOO MOO ...

 

[cityslick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1


Well if he informed LDB at the end of June and LDB entered the findings into the court, she should be fine. Is there footage of the Judge addressing the Jury telling them to disregard the 84 number?

I think that's Ghostcrab's point is that the judge did not tell them to disregard. So it's either on the judge (if LDB really did disclose to the DT) or on the state (if LDB didn't disclose).

 

[JSR]

You should back up what you say. At least provide a link to the point in the trial that LDB admitted her error to the DT in open court.

I'm trying to find it. It was before closings started.

 

[askfornina]

i don't think anyone is saying that this is set in STONE, LDB DID THIS 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT COMPLETELY. everyone is just speculating at this point and that is obvious. until we get word from the SA, obviously no one can know for sure.

 

[dvdman]

Wow 13 plus pages for something that really has no significance now. The Casey Maria Anthony nightmare continues. Will it never end?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't if this has been pointed out yet, but Bradley has his dates wrong. Stenger testified 6/23 about the 84 times, not 6/16.

Actually, I just noticed he has corrected the dates on that page.

 

[Aedrys]

You should back up what you say. At least provide a link to the point in the trial that LDB admitted her error to the DT in open court.

Links have been offered, and apparently ignored. And some people do this revolutionary thing of researching and finding out information themselves rather than standing behind unfounded and unproven assertions and making other people do work they should be doing themselves. It's not that hard to find the closing statements and see exactly what LDB said and or didn't said.

 

[Chablis]

i don't think anyone is saying that this is set in STONE, LDB DID THIS 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT COMPLETELY. everyone is just speculating at this point and that is obvious. until we get word from the SA, obviously no one can know for sure.

I hope we hear something soon!

 

[SMK]

Wow, watching HLN, imo, the State is in trouble. I predict LDB's resignation shortly.

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

 

[Aedrys]

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

All of which are MEDIA, who want to print stories that people will read. NONE of those, not even the NY Times, is gospel. It sounds way more salacious and sells more news to say it's a gravely serious matter than actually get the facts and see it's not really a problem at all. I want to hear something from the SA or the State of Florida before I go burning them down over this.

 

[GhostCrab]

Links have been offered, and apparently ignored. And some people do this revolutionary thing of researching and finding out information themselves rather than stand behind unfounded and unproven assertions and making other people do work they should be doing themselves. It's not that hard to find the closing statements and see exactly what LDB said and or didn't said.

It has nothing to do with the closing statement.

 

[dvdman]

Well I guess if you ignore the 31 days, duct tape,lies,jail house videos, smell in the car,tattoo and the partying just to name a few then I guess it (PC searches) would be a big deal. But honestly though the Jury didn't care because they bought into the Defense's opening statement so the entire trial after that was a mute point and that my fellow posters is the facts the way I see it.

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

 

[elementary]

How do we know that the issue was not addressed in a sidebar? Perhaps LDB and JA took the information once they found out on June 25th and told HHJP and HHJP said that the defense questioning and witness had already dispited the 84 times so it was on the record that there was a disagreement about it. Maybe this was a decision above LBD and JA to not re-call the witness.

Also, as much as I can remember, LDB and JA didn't say "84 times" in closing statements. So they were respecting the fact that it was misinformation and not using it in closing.

But I do agree that in theory this is a big deal, and if I were LDB and JA I would be soooo mad at the cacheback people because attorneys depend on their witnesses to have true and accurate information. LDB and JA are not forensic computer experts, how would they know it was wrong?

Can you imagine the mess this would have been if FCA was found guilty? I would guess she would have won an appeal with this information.

Baez brings it up just before Linda Drane Burdick stands up for her closing rebuttal, the morning of July 4. (nice bit of ambush there):

http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html (10:45 mark) (Thanks to kidz110, who posted this earlier for the link! :rocker:

LDB's response is that defence has finished closing arguments. She seems pretty laid back about it.

Judge Perry says he doesn't know if it is true or not, and that if there was false testimony that the defence file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time and he will take a look at it. He says he doesn't want to go chasing arguments now.

 

[SoSueMe]

Folks, remember to provide links to your sources.

Concerning this thread, this is one quick link I find on this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=2

 

[back2back19]

From twitter:

bobkealing bob kealing
Soon I'm told“@teamperkins: #CaseyAnthony Has there been response from the SA Office regarding the error on the 84 searches on chloroform?

 

[dunlurken]

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

How could they not know the software was flawed?
How could they not know the body farm was junk science (pardon me for that but I knew it well before this went to trial.)
How could prosecution not know they had no forensic evidence?
How could prosecution not know CE is not always enough?
And these are professionals? Who spent thousands of bucks trying a case they couldn't prove?

The jurors were not dummies and I applaud them. JMO.