BBM
Lets take a look at some of Ms Fords own words as to what she learned:
Quote:
Ford agreed that Anthony was a "pathological liar"
"I'm not saying I believe the defense," she said.
http://yfrog.com/kfejcg
This page says it is fake.
The chloroform really never entered into it for me. So the idea that the case hinged on 84 searches or 1 is laughable.
I think many people have stated as well that they have searches that are quite odd in their browser history. Google searches are not evidence.
In my opinion people are acting like if it's not first degree murder then she must be innocent. But she was not there for her daughter when her daughter needed her. I don't care how disassociated you can be, she doesn't seem to care about her daughter at all even years later. That's enough for me.
The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.
I still don't completely understand the problem with the computer searches, but I did remember Baez addressing a problem with them right before LDB's rebuttal. It starts at 10:45 in this video. http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html
A mistrial should have been declared when the jury requested to see the duct tape with the heart shape sticker residue -- what happened to heeding all the admonitions handed down by HHJBP. The case was only about one quarter way through when this occurred I think, but not a word was said. I thought Florida was a strict judicial state???
imo
respectfully snipped
I wouldn't worry, HRCODEPINK. She was acquitted of the crimes related to this evidence, so I don't see how she could claim damages in this case.
She could claim damages because her Constitutional rights were violated. In addition, every news outlet in America and around the world claimed that she made 84 searches, when this is, according to the expert, untrue and is damaging to her character. While I could care less about her character, I truly am not a CFCA sympathizer, if her rights were violated, a case against the state alone, whether she wins or loses is still going to cost the stare more money. And most importantly, if people are not held accountable for their actions, if this is true, then it could happen again in other cases and puts a negative light on the state in future cases. Keep in mind that any time a violation of the Constitutional rights of one individual are infringed upon and that is deemed okay, by omission or otherwise, it could set precedent in future cases that the violation of these rights is okay in other cases. We have to keep in mind that everything in court happens not only at the direction of the Constitution, but also previous case law and decisions in other cases.
This is why HHJP was so careful to make sure that her rights were not violated. He was trying to avoid what may end up happening here anyway because of this.
Okay, I am going to try to explain this again, because I DO want you guys to understand. Please bear with me, because my migraine is not gone, but I am willing to sit here and try to make sense of it for as long as it takes because I feel that it is that important.
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.
Had CFCA been convicted, her defense team could have presented this evidence to the court on appeals and her conviction could have been overturned and she could have sued the state for violating her rights. It does not matter in the least how important the evidence was or how much weight the jury could or would have given to it. The problem is not necessarily with the evidence or how important it was. The violation of her Constitutional rights pretty much trumps everything else. Now, if this is proven to be true (like if this man still has the emails or recorded the call) CFCA can sue the state of Florida and could possibly win. Especially since she was found not guilty, this makes it even easier for her to do so. If she wins that case, the state of FL will be paying her for violating her rights.
http://yfrog.com/kfejcg
This page says it is fake.
The chloroform really never entered into it for me. So the idea that the case hinged on 84 searches or 1 is laughable.
I think many people have stated as well that they have searches that are quite odd in their browser history. Google searches are not evidence.
In my opinion people are acting like if it's not first degree murder then she must be innocent. But she was not there for her daughter when her daughter needed her. I don't care how disassociated you can be, she doesn't seem to care about her daughter at all even years later. That's enough for me.
The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.
I think the fact that Cindy lied to cover it up speaks VOLUMES! why lie about the chloroform?? makes no sense and frankly searching it ONE time is enough considering there was chloroform in the TRUNK! 1 + 1 = 2 people.
Do they have plans to bring a suit about this?Great post.
you (or mods) should post your posts on this subject in the designated thread that was just created so more people will see them![]()
Great post.
you (or mods) should post your posts on this subject in the designated thread that was just created so more people will see them![]()
It would probably be the most informative thread in this section!
Do they have plans to bring a suit about this?
[
The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.